Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Rich, you're missing the point

Posted by RGA (R) on March 19, 2012 at 23:22:12

In Reply to: Rich, you're missing the point posted by E-Stat on March 17, 2012 at 06:11:02:

Thanks for clearing it up. I actually agree with what you've written here. The word reference is to the "real" sound or "real" instruments. The term reference in home audio is the "current" system owned by the review publication or reviewer. So perhaps a better word should be used than the reviewer's "reference" system.

Amplified music sources have no reference to reality since their pumped through their own amps/speakers/venues. The contrast method will however tell you more differences between them - a speaker that does a better job of that has a greater level of "resolution" because it can resolve those differences - whether it be unamplified live or amplified daft punk versus amplified Evil Nine. You can't use a comparison to live here since there is no actual real instrument (or maybe there was but it is doctored synthed or whatever else).

We'll have to agree to disagree on level there are a great many who do want bass and do want to have it at levels they can feel it. I'd say the vast majority in fact since the first thing you do with those puny little 2 way standmounts with 4 inch woofers is buy a beastly subwoofer. The whole point of most of those is produce loud bass. And the majority of music is pop - Madonna Lady Gaga kind of stuff.

They want Lady Gaga - StarStruck at relatively high DBs to pound. I maintain that good speakers need to be able to do that and those that can't have no business being called Hi-Fi Speakers - if you can't reproduce 99% of what actually sells in terms of music there is a problem. Even if it has no basis in a live acoustic instrument. I still say stereos need to reproduce the electrical signals it gets fed - even if it is fake music from synthesizer autotuned to the hilt.

I agree however that you can't compare this to live and so that is when you compare it to other recordings across genres.

The Magnepan 1.7 makes the linked recording sound similar to everything else I threw at them that than do my speakers and thus it means the 1.7 is less resolving because it lumps them into something that is far too similar sounding - and that just isn't right. It doesn't have the weight on piano when you hear someone play an actual piano in the room. I am fortunate the school I am at has a baby grand and I can play it and then directly compare what I am playing to a similar recording - so I get the live comparisons. It's my go to first thing - does it sound something like a piano in the room.

I admit though that this music in the link is also somewhat more open to subjectivity but if you can't understand that a big high quality dynamic (or even not so high quality like a Cerwin Vega CLS 215 (though this is better than people would think) speaker "sounds better" than a Totem model one or MMG then I can't help you.

The thing doesn't have to be played at deafening levels to the point that it is doubling. At 75db it still sounds much better than an MMG reproducing it - indeed the problem for the Quads and Maggies is they MUST be cranked in order for them to remotely possess any of the drive and ambiance to take hold of the listener. And I don't want to play everything at deafening levels to get any sense of weight.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPgTIY4iQ   (Open in New Window)

Edits: 03/19/12 03/20/12

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---